San Diego, Sr. v. Nombre
Uploaded by
Jonathan BravaSan Diego, Sr. v. Nombre
Uploaded by
Jonathan BravaSAN DIEGO v NOMBRE (Yap)
11 SCRA 165, May 29, 1964 (5) However, on appeal, the CA ruled:
Petitioner/s: MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR.
Respondent/s: ADELO NOMBRE and PEDRO ESCANLAR No such limitation on the power of a judicial administrator to grant
lease of property placed under his custody is provided for in the
Doctrine: The provisions on agency should not apply to a judicial present law. Under Art. 1647, it is only when the lease is to be
administrator. A judicial administrator is appointed by the court. He is not only recorded in the Registry of Property that it cannot be instituted
the representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the estate. without special authority. Thus, regardless of the period of lease,
Before entering into his duties, he is required to file a bond. These there is no need for special authority unless the contract is to be
circumstances are not required in agency. The agent is only answerable to recorded in the Registry.
his principal. The protection which law gives the principal in limiting the
powers and rights of an agent stems from the fact that control by the principal Rule 85, Sec. 3 of the ROC authorizes a judicial administrator to
can only be through agreements. Whereas, the acts of a judicial administer the estate of the deceased not disposed by will, for
administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the purposes of liquidation and distribution. He may, therefore, exercise
appointing court. all acts of administration without special authority of the Court; such
as the leasing the property. And where the lease has been formally
Facts: entered into, the court cannot, in the same proceeding, annul the
(1) Respondent Adelo Nombre was the duly constituted judicial same. The proper remedy would be a separate action by the
administrator. As such, he leased one of the properties of the estate administrator or the heirs to annul the lease.
—a fishpond—to Pedro Escanlar, the other respondent. The terms of
the lease was for 3 years, with a yearly rental of P3,000. The (6) On appeal to the SC, petitioner contends that Art. 1878(8) limits the
transaction was done without previous authority or approval of the right of a judicial administrator to lease the real property without prior
Court. court authority and approval, if it exceeds 1 year. The lease in favor
of Escalanlar, being 3 years and without court approval, is therefore
(2) A year after, Nombre was removed as administrator, and was void.
replaced by one Sofronio Campillanos. Escalanlar was cited for
contempt for allegedly refusing to surrender the fishpond to the newly Issue: W/N the provisions on Agency should apply in this case. (NO)
appointed administrator.
Held:
(3) Subsequently, Campillanos filed a motion for authority to execute a
lease contract over the fishpond, in favor of petitioner Moises San The provisions on agency should not apply to a judicial administrator. A
Diego, for 5 years with yearly rental of P5,000. Escalanlar was not judicial administrator is appointed by the court. He is not only the
notified of the said motion. Nombre, on the other hand, opposed to representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the estate.
the motion, pointing out that the fishpond was leased by him to Before entering into his duties, he is required to file a bond. These
Escalandar for 3 years. He alleged that the validity of the lease circumstances are not required in agency. The agent is only answerable to
contract entered into by a judicial administrator must be recognized his principal. The protection which law gives the principal in limiting the
unless declared void in a separate action. powers and rights of an agent stems from the fact that control by the principal
can only be through agreements. Whereas, the acts of a judicial
(4) The lower court declared the contract in favor of Escanlar null and administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the
void for want of judicial authority and that San Diego offered better appointing court.
lease conditions than Escanlar. In light of this, Escanlar agreed to
increase the rental to P5,000 after the termination of his original Fallo: The decision of the CA was affirmed.
contract. However, the trial judge stated that such contract was
fraudulent and executed in bad faith because Nombre was removed
as administrator and the rentals of the property was inadequate.